idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-ccamp-rsvp-te-bandwidth-availability-03.txt: Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the IETF Trust and authors Copyright Line does not match the current year -- The document date (October 16, 2015) is 3114 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references to lower-maturity documents in RFCs) == Missing Reference: 'RFC2119' is mentioned on line 87, but not defined == Missing Reference: 'RFC2205' is mentioned on line 295, but not defined == Missing Reference: 'This ID' is mentioned on line 341, but not defined == Unused Reference: 'RFC2210' is defined on line 358, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'MCOS' is defined on line 374, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'G.827' is defined on line 378, but no explicit reference was found in the text Summary: 0 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 7 warnings (==), 1 comment (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 Network Working Group H. Long, M. Ye 2 Internet Draft Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd 3 Intended status: Standards Track G. Mirsky 4 Ericsson 5 A.D'Alessandro 6 Telecom Italia S.p.A 7 H. Shah 8 Ciena 9 Expires: April 13, 2016 October 16, 2015 11 Ethernet Traffic Parameters with Availability Information 12 draft-ietf-ccamp-rsvp-te-bandwidth-availability-03.txt 14 Abstract 16 A Packet switching network may contain links with variable bandwidth, 17 e.g., copper, radio, etc. The bandwidth of such links is sensitive 18 to external environment. Availability is typically used for 19 describing the link during network planning. This document 20 introduces an Extended Ethernet Bandwidth Profile TLV and an 21 optional Availability sub-TLV in Resource ReSerVation Protocol - 22 Traffic Engineer (RSVP-TE) signaling. This extension can be used to 23 set up a label switching path (LSP) in a Packet Switched Network 24 (PSN) that contains links with discretely variable bandwidth. 26 Status of this Memo 28 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the 29 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 31 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 32 Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that 33 other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- 34 Drafts. 36 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six 37 months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents 38 at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as 39 reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 41 The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at 42 http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt 44 The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at 45 http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html 46 This Internet-Draft will expire on April 13, 2016. 48 Copyright Notice 50 Copyright (c) 2015 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 51 document authors. All rights reserved. 53 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 54 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents 55 (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of 56 publication of this document. Please review these documents 57 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with 58 respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this 59 document must include Simplified BSD License text as described in 60 Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without 61 warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License. 63 Table of Contents 65 1. Introduction ................................................ 3 66 2. Overview .................................................... 4 67 3. Extension to RSVP-TE Signaling............................... 4 68 3.1.1. Extended Ethernet Bandwidth Profile TLV............ 5 69 3.1.2. Availability sub-TLV............................... 5 70 3.2. FLOWSPEC Object......................................... 6 71 3.3. Signaling Process....................................... 6 72 4. Security Considerations...................................... 7 73 5. IANA Considerations ......................................... 7 74 5.1 Ethernet Sender TSpec TLVs ............................. 7 75 5.2 Extended Ethernet Bandwidth Profile TLV ................ 8 76 6. References .................................................. 8 77 6.1. Normative References.................................... 8 78 6.2. Informative References.................................. 9 79 7. Appendix: Bandwidth Availability Example..................... 9 80 8. Acknowledgments ............................................ 11 82 Conventions used in this document 84 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 85 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this 86 document are to be interpreted as described in RFC-2119 [RFC2119]. 88 The following acronyms are used in this draft: 90 RSVP-TE Resource Reservation Protocol-Traffic Engineering 92 LSP Label Switched Path 93 PSN Packet Switched Network 95 SNR Signal-to-noise Ratio 97 TLV Type Length Value 99 LSA Link State Advertisement 101 1. Introduction 103 The RSVP-TE specification [RFC3209] and GMPLS extensions [RFC3473] 104 specify the signaling message including the bandwidth request for 105 setting up a label switching path in a PSN network. 107 Some data communication technologies allow seamless change of 108 maximum physical bandwidth through a set of known discrete values. 109 The parameter availability [G.827, F.1703, P.530] is often used to 110 describe the link capacity during network planning. The availability 111 is a time scale that the requested bandwidth is ensured. A more 112 detailed example on the bandwidth availability can be found in 113 Appendix A. Assigning different availability classes to different 114 types of service over such kind of links provides more efficient 115 planning of link capacity. To set up an LSP across these links, 116 availability information is required for the nodes to verify 117 bandwidth satisfaction and make bandwidth reservation. The 118 availability information should be inherited from the availability 119 requirements of the services expected to be carried on the LSP. For 120 example, voice service usually needs "five nines" availability, 121 while non-real time services may adequately perform at four or three 122 nines availability. Since different service types may need different 123 availabilities guarantees, multiple pairs 124 may be required when signaling. 126 If the availability requirement is not specified in the signaling 127 message, the bandwidth will be reserved as the highest availability. 128 For example, the bandwidth with 99.999% availability of a link is 129 100 Mbps; the bandwidth with 99.99% availability is 200 Mbps. When a 130 video application requests for 120 Mbps without availability 131 requirement, the system will consider the request as 120 Mbps with 132 99.999% availability, while the available bandwidth with 99.999% 133 availability is only 100 Mbps, therefore the LSP path cannot be set 134 up. But in fact, video application doesn't need 99.999% availability; 135 99.99% availability is enough. In this case, the LSP could be set up 136 if availability is specified in the signaling message. 138 To fulfill LSP setup by signaling in these scenarios, this document 139 specifies an Extended Ethernet Bandwidth Profile and an Availability 140 sub-TLV. The Availability sub-TLV can be applicable to any kind of 141 physical links with variable discrete bandwidth, such as microwave 142 or DSL. Multiple Extended Ethernet Bandwidth Profiles with different 143 availability can be carried in the Ethernet SENDER_TSPEC object. 145 2. Overview 147 A PSN tunnel may span one or more links in a network. To setup a 148 label switching path (LSP), a node may collect link information 149 which is spread in routing message, e.g., OSPF TE LSA message, by 150 network nodes to get to know about the network topology, and 151 calculate out an LSP route based on the network topology, and send 152 the calculated LSP route to signaling to initiate a PATH/RESV 153 message for setting up the LSP. 155 In case that there is(are) link(s) with variable discrete bandwidth 156 in a network, a requirement list should be 157 specified for an LSP. Each pair in the 158 list means that listed bandwidth with specified availability is 159 required. The list could be inherited from the results of service 160 planning for the LSP. 162 A node which has link(s) with variable discrete bandwidth attached 163 should contain a information list in its 164 OSPF TE LSA messages. The list provides the information that how 165 much bandwidth a link can support for a specified availability. This 166 information is used for path calculation by the node(s). The routing 167 extension for availability can be found in [ARTE]. 169 When a node initiates a PATH/RESV signaling to set up an LSP, the 170 PATH message should carry the requirement 171 list as bandwidth request. Intermediate node(s) will allocate the 172 bandwidth resource for each availability requirement from the 173 remaining bandwidth with corresponding availability. An error 174 message may be returned if any request 175 cannot be satisfied. 177 3. Extension to RSVP-TE Signaling 179 The initial idea is to define an Availability sub-TLV under Ethernet 180 Bandwidth Profile TLV [RFC6003]. However the Ethernet Bandwidth 181 Profile TLV doesn't have the ability to carry a sub-TLV according to 182 RFC6003. Therefore, an Extend Ethernet Bandwidth Profile TLV is 183 defined in this document to avoid the backward compatibility issue. 184 The Extended Ethernet Bandwidth Profile TLV includes Ethernet BW TLV 185 and has variable length. It MAY include Availability sub-TLV which 186 is also defined in this document. 188 3.1.1. Extended Ethernet Bandwidth Profile TLV 190 The Extended Ethernet Bandwidth Profile TLV is included in the 191 Ethernet SENDER_TSPEC, and MAY be included for more than one time. 192 The Extended Ethernet Bandwidth Profile TLV has the following format. 194 0 1 2 3 195 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 196 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 197 | Type | Length | 198 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 199 |Pro|A| | Index | Reserved | 200 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 201 | CIR | 202 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 203 | CBS | 204 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 205 | EIR | 206 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 207 | EBS | 208 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 209 | sub-TLV(OPTIONAL) | 210 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 212 Figure 1: A new "AF" filed in Extended Ethernet Bandwidth Profile TLV 214 The difference between the Extended Ethernet Bandwidth Profile TLV 215 and Ethernet Bandwidth Profile TLV is that a new AF field to 216 indicate the sub-TLV is defined in the Extended Ethernet Bandwidth 217 Profile TLV. The rest definitions are the same. 219 A new filed is defined in this document: 221 AF filed (bit 2): Availability Field (AF) 223 If the AF filed is set to 1, Availability sub-TLV MUST be included 224 in the Extended Ethernet Bandwidth Profile TLV. If the AF field is 225 set to value 0, then an Availability sub-TLV SHOULD NOT be included. 227 3.1.2. Availability sub-TLV 229 The Availability sub-TLV has the following format: 231 0 1 2 3 232 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 233 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 234 | Type | Length | 235 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 236 | Availability | 237 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 239 Figure 2: Availability sub-TLV 241 Type (2 octets): TBD 243 Length (2 octets): 4 245 Availability (4 octets): a 32-bit floating number describes the 246 decimal value of availability requirement for this bandwidth 247 request. The value MUST be less than 1. 249 As the Extended Ethernet Bandwidth Profile TLV can be carried for 250 one or more times in the Ethernet SENDER_TSPEC object, the 251 Availability sub-TLV can also be present for one or more times. 253 3.2. FLOWSPEC Object 255 The FLOWSPEC object (Class-Num = 9, Class-Type = TBD) has the same 256 format as the Ethernet SENDER_TSPEC object. 258 3.3. Signaling Process 260 The source node initiates PATH messages including one or more 261 Extended Bandwidth Profile TLVs with different availability values 262 in the SENDER_TSPEC object. Each Extended Bandwidth Profile TLV 263 specifies the bandwidth request with referred availability 264 requirement. 266 The intermediate and destination nodes check whether they can 267 satisfy the bandwidth requirements by comparing each bandwidth 268 requirement inside the SENDER_TSPEC objects with the remaining link 269 sub-bandwidth resource with respective availability guarantee when 270 received the PATH message. 272 o If all requirements can be 273 satisfied (the requested bandwidth under each availability 274 parameter is smaller than or equal to the remaining bandwidth 275 under the corresponding availability parameter on its local 276 link), it SHOULD reserve the bandwidth resource from each 277 remaining sub-bandwidth portion on its local link to set up 278 this LSP. Optionally, the higher availability bandwidth can be 279 allocated to lower availability request when the lower 280 availability bandwidth cannot satisfy the request. 282 o If at least one requirement cannot 283 be satisfied, it SHOULD generate PathErr message with the error 284 code "Admission Control Error" and the error value "Requested 285 Bandwidth Unavailable" (see [RFC2205]). 287 If two LSPs request for the bandwidth with the same availability 288 requirement, a way to resolve the contention is comparing the node 289 ID, the node with the higher node ID will win the contention. More 290 details can be found in [RFC3473]. 292 If a node does not support the Extended Bandwidth Profile TLV and 293 Availability sub-TLV, it SHOULD generate PathErr message with the 294 error code "Extended Class-Type Error" and the error value "Class- 295 Type mismatch" (see [RFC2205]). 297 4. Security Considerations 299 This document does not introduce new security considerations to the 300 existing RSVP-TE signaling protocol. 302 5. IANA Considerations 304 IANA maintains registries and sub-registries for RSVP-TE used by 305 GMPLS. IANA is requested to make allocations from these registries 306 as set out in the following sections. 308 5.1 Ethernet Sender TSpec TLVs 310 IANA maintains a registry of GMPLS parameters called "Generalized 311 Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Parameters". 313 IANA has created a new sub-registry called "Ethernet Sender TSpec 314 TLVs / Ethernet Flowspec TLVs" to contain the TLV type values for 315 TLVs carried in the Ethernet SENDER_TSPEC object. A new value is as 316 follow: 318 Type Description Reference 320 ----- ----------------------------------- --------- 322 TBD Extended Ethernet Bandwidth Profile [This ID] 324 5.2 Extended Ethernet Bandwidth Profile TLV 326 IANA has created a new sub-registry called "Extended Ethernet 327 Bandwidth Profiles" to contain bit flags carried in the Extended 328 Ethernet Bandwidth Profile TLV of the Ethernet SENDER_TSPEC object. 330 Bits are to be allocated by Standards Action. Bits are numbered from 331 bit 0 as the low order bit. A new bit field is as follow: 333 Bit Hex Description Reference 335 --- ---- ------------------ ----------- 337 0 0x01 Coupling Flag (CF) [RFC6003] 339 1 0x02 Color Mode (CM) [RFC6003] 341 2 0x04 Availability Field (AF) [This ID] 343 Sub-TLV types for Extended Ethernet Bandwidth Profiles are to be 344 allocated by Standards Action. Initial values are as follows: 346 Type Length Format Description 348 --- ---- ------------------ ----------- 350 0 - Reserved Reserved value 352 0x01 4 see Section 3.1.2 of this ID Availability 354 6. References 356 6.1. Normative References 358 [RFC2210] Wroclawski, J., "The Use of RSVP with IETF Integrated 359 Services", RFC 2210, September 1997. 361 [RFC3209] Awduche, D., Berger, L., Gan, D., Li, T., Srinivasan, 362 V.,and G. Swallow, "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP 363 Tunnels", RFC 3209, December 2001. 365 [RFC3473] Berger, L., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching 366 (GMPLS) Signaling Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic 367 Engineering (RSVP-TE) Extensions", RFC 3473, January 2003. 369 [RFC6003] Papadimitriou, D. "Ethernet Traffic Parameters", RFC 6003, 370 October 2010. 372 6.2. Informative References 374 [MCOS] Minei, I., Gan, D., Kompella, K., and X. Li, "Extensions 375 for Differentiated Services-aware Traffic Engineered 376 LSPs", Work in Progress, June 2006. 378 [G.827] ITU-T Recommendation, "Availability performance parameters 379 and objectives for end-to-end international constant bit- 380 rate digital paths", September, 2003. 382 [F.1703] ITU-R Recommendation, "Availability objectives for real 383 digital fixed wireless links used in 27 500 km 384 hypothetical reference paths and connections", January, 385 2005. 387 [P.530] ITU-R Recommendation," Propagation data and prediction 388 methods required for the design of terrestrial line-of- 389 sight systems", February, 2012 391 [EN 302 217] ETSI standard, "Fixed Radio Systems; Characteristics 392 and requirements for point-to-point equipment and 393 antennas", April, 2009 395 [ARTE] H., Long, M., Ye, Mirsky, G., Alessandro, A., Shah, H., 396 "OSPF Routing Extension for Links with Variable Discrete 397 Bandwidth", Work in Progress, June, 2015 399 7. Appendix: Bandwidth Availability Example 401 In mobile backhaul network, microwave links are very popular for 402 providing connection of last hops. In case of heavy rain, to 403 maintain the link connectivity, the microwave link MAY lower the 404 modulation level since demodulating the lower modulation level needs 405 a lower Signal-to-Noise Ratio (SNR). This is called adaptive 406 modulation technology [EN 302 217]. However, a lower modulation 407 level also means lower link bandwidth. When link bandwidth is 408 reduced because of modulation down-shifting, high-priority traffic 409 can be maintained, while lower-priority traffic is dropped. 410 Similarly, the copper links MAY change their link bandwidth due to 411 external interference. 413 Presuming that a link has three discrete bandwidth levels: 415 The link bandwidth under modulation level 1, e.g., QPSK, is 100 Mbps; 417 The link bandwidth under modulation level 2, e.g., 16QAM, is 200 418 Mbps; 420 The link bandwidth under modulation level 3, e.g., 256QAM, is 400 421 Mbps. 423 In sunny day, the modulation level 3 can be used to achieve 400 Mbps 424 link bandwidth. 426 A light rain with X mm/h rate triggers the system to change the 427 modulation level from level 3 to level 2, with bandwidth changing 428 from 400 Mbps to 200 Mbps. The probability of X mm/h rain in the 429 local area is 52 minutes in a year. Then the dropped 200 Mbps 430 bandwidth has 99.99% availability. 432 A heavy rain with Y(Y>X) mm/h rate triggers the system to change the 433 modulation level from level 2 to level 1, with bandwidth changing 434 from 200 Mbps to 100 Mbps. The probability of Y mm/h rain in the 435 local area is 26 minutes in a year. Then the dropped 100 Mbps 436 bandwidth has 99.995% availability. 438 For the 100M bandwidth of the modulation level 1, only the extreme 439 weather condition can cause the whole system unavailable, which only 440 happens for 5 minutes in a year. So the 100 Mbps bandwidth of the 441 modulation level 1 owns the availability of 99.999%. 443 In a word, the maximum bandwidth is 400 Mbps. According to the 444 weather condition, the sub-bandwidth and its availability are shown 445 as follows: 447 Sub-bandwidth(Mbps) Availability 449 ------------------ ------------ 451 200 99.99% 453 100 99.995% 455 100 99.999% 457 8. Acknowledgments 459 The authors would like to thank Khuzema Pithewan, Lou Berger, Yuji 460 Tochio, Dieter Beller, and Autumn Liu for their comments on the 461 document. 463 Authors' Addresses 465 Hao Long 466 Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd. 467 No.1899, Xiyuan Avenue, Hi-tech Western District 468 Chengdu 611731, P.R.China 470 Phone: +86-18615778750 471 Email: longhao@huawei.com 473 Min Ye (editor) 474 Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd. 475 No.1899, Xiyuan Avenue, Hi-tech Western District 476 Chengdu 611731, P.R.China 478 Email: amy.yemin@huawei.com 480 Greg Mirsky (editor) 481 Ericsson 483 Email: gregory.mirsky@ericsson.com 485 Alessandro D'Alessandro 486 Telecom Italia S.p.A 488 Email: alessandro.dalessandro@telecomitalia.it 490 Himanshu Shah 491 Ciena Corp. 492 3939 North First Street 493 San Jose, CA 95134 494 US 496 Email: hshah@ciena.com